Something I've been thinking about lately is personal identity, or identities. I'm a wetlands ecologist, therefore a scientist. I identify as a woman. I like to run, but does that make me a runner? It's all very complex.
I've seen a lot of arguing on Twitter lately about scientists vs who gets to claim being a scientist. Academia vs private/industry/government, like that somehow makes someone more or less of a scientist. In my opinion, neither is better, necessarily, though one category is better suited for the individual scientist. I don't like to hustle for money or want to get my PhD, so academia is not suited for me. I do like to work on projects and can run projects (just don't want to hustle for the grant money) so non-academia is better for me. To each their own, but why do we keep fighting about it?
Also, why do we keep fighting about who is vs who isn't a scientist? Do you do science? Then you are a scientist. The word scientist itself was formed to be more inclusive, so let's just be inclusive. If you do science and want to identify as a scientist (or not identify as a scientist and identify as something else) then go for it.
The same goes for other categories/identities as well, thought I don't often feel as comfortable claiming those identities as my own. I am a scientist, have been for years, and totally do identify as that.
I also do triathlons, but does that make me a triathlete? It does, but I don't feel comfortable describing myself that way for some reason. Same with running. I've run many events (including a marathon & an ultra marathon) but I don't describe myself as a runner. I love photography and really enjoy it, but don't really claim the photographer identity. I totally have a right to these identities, just like you have the right to whatever identities you want.
I think my real point is - if you do X activity, that gives you X identity, and then it's up to you if you want to claim it or identify yourself as such. There's also many other identities encompassing social, gender, and other areas. But mainly let's just stop putting others into boxes and just let everyone identify themselves how they wish to! Scientists included!
Saturday, July 20, 2019
Thursday, July 11, 2019
Conservation Book of the Month, July 2019: Grizzly Years by Doug Peacock
I forgot to post this earlier! As always you can join us in discussions in the Outdoor Conservation Book Club on Goodreads.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Shopping Ban: Month 9 update!
It's hard to believe that I've been on this shopping ban journey for 9 months now. It really doesn't feel like it and I almost don't even realize I've placed these restrictions on myself anymore. I am still aware of them and do my best to stay within them, but I don't feel actually restricted. Here's some examples.
1. I was down to my last pair of non-gym style shorts and in need. It's hot as hell here (almost literally) and I just can't make it all summer in jeans. So I went to a local secondhand shop and managed to find 3 pairs of shorts for $22! Normally one pair brand new would have cost me around that so it was definitely a win. Also they look brand new and nobody is going to know I didn't buy them new unless they come read this and ask me about it.
2. I am allowed to buy things to replace items that are legit worn out, and I've now busted 2 pairs of field pants and 2 field shirts in the last few weeks so I bought 1 new pair of pants, repaired both of the pair I wrecked, and bought 2 new field shirts. I am not confident one of the repairs will last very long so another pair was definitely needed. And my long sleeve sun shirts lose UPF rating over time and I wear them constantly so I rotate out the older ones and buy 1-2 new ones every year anyway. Field gear is a weird category because I'm fine with buying used pants (but couldn't find any in my size) but want brand new shirts for max UPF protection. South Louisiana is brutal and I work outside all summer. Sun safe, y'all!
I'm also doing some fundraising for an exciting new adventure (which I will announce publicly soon!) and I'm offering some perks in exchange for donations. I've given myself a shopping ban hiatus on a few things so that I can achieve this goal. I needed photo mats, shipping envelopes, thank you note cards, and photo prints for this and went ahead and bought them. I don't think this counts as shopping, necessarily, because it IS for a project and it IS well thought out and it IS basically going to be gifts to people for donating to the fundraiser. So all that is fine in my opinion.
I also bought 0 books in June, but did immediately reach my $25 limit for books in July. I bought a digital copy of Bird Therapy by Joe Harkness and so far I LOVE IT. I also bought some books for the OC Book Club, used of course, from Thrift Books (which is possibly my favorite website ever after www.howmanyaltuves.com). I have been heavily using the library for some research reading (yay public libraries!)
I have yet to purchase anything under the new Rule #3 of the shopping ban, which is to allow purchases from local artists. I have one in mind but have yet to pull the trigger on it. I tend to overthink purchases ANYWAY and this one is no different, even though it's allowed in the rules.
Keep being conscientious consumers and do your best to minimize your impact!
1. I was down to my last pair of non-gym style shorts and in need. It's hot as hell here (almost literally) and I just can't make it all summer in jeans. So I went to a local secondhand shop and managed to find 3 pairs of shorts for $22! Normally one pair brand new would have cost me around that so it was definitely a win. Also they look brand new and nobody is going to know I didn't buy them new unless they come read this and ask me about it.
2. I am allowed to buy things to replace items that are legit worn out, and I've now busted 2 pairs of field pants and 2 field shirts in the last few weeks so I bought 1 new pair of pants, repaired both of the pair I wrecked, and bought 2 new field shirts. I am not confident one of the repairs will last very long so another pair was definitely needed. And my long sleeve sun shirts lose UPF rating over time and I wear them constantly so I rotate out the older ones and buy 1-2 new ones every year anyway. Field gear is a weird category because I'm fine with buying used pants (but couldn't find any in my size) but want brand new shirts for max UPF protection. South Louisiana is brutal and I work outside all summer. Sun safe, y'all!
I'm also doing some fundraising for an exciting new adventure (which I will announce publicly soon!) and I'm offering some perks in exchange for donations. I've given myself a shopping ban hiatus on a few things so that I can achieve this goal. I needed photo mats, shipping envelopes, thank you note cards, and photo prints for this and went ahead and bought them. I don't think this counts as shopping, necessarily, because it IS for a project and it IS well thought out and it IS basically going to be gifts to people for donating to the fundraiser. So all that is fine in my opinion.
I also bought 0 books in June, but did immediately reach my $25 limit for books in July. I bought a digital copy of Bird Therapy by Joe Harkness and so far I LOVE IT. I also bought some books for the OC Book Club, used of course, from Thrift Books (which is possibly my favorite website ever after www.howmanyaltuves.com). I have been heavily using the library for some research reading (yay public libraries!)
I have yet to purchase anything under the new Rule #3 of the shopping ban, which is to allow purchases from local artists. I have one in mind but have yet to pull the trigger on it. I tend to overthink purchases ANYWAY and this one is no different, even though it's allowed in the rules.
Keep being conscientious consumers and do your best to minimize your impact!
Sunday, June 30, 2019
The Cost of Science
I've spent much of the past month driving, in the name of science. Driving down the highway to the next field site, driving the boat to the next site, driving back to the launch, driving to the next boat launch. And endless number of hours and miles driven by land and water. All in the name of science.
The work we've been doing isn't destructive, exactly, but we are using a lot of fuel to collect the necessary data for our research projects. I often wonder, now and in past projects, if the cost of fuel and the price of emissions is worth the data and the end goal.
Trucks aren't exactly fuel efficient, particularly when towing a trailer, and boats aren't fuel efficient either, particularly not airboats. I've used ATVs in the past as well, and they use less fuel because they're smaller but still use fuel.
In graduate school I studied shorebird usage of rice fields during spring migration, and had to complete my survey rounds every 8 days. I'd drive hundreds of miles every week to visit 100 rice fields every 8 days to do my roadside surveys. I got loads of great data, had some good conclusions, and completed my thesis. But I drove thousands of miles in pursuit of that data.
If I drove 5000 miles in pursuit of that data, the average vehicle emissions is 2.1 metric tons. That's apparently equivalent to 2274 pounds of coal being burned, and 5 barrels oil being consumed.
I used the Car Carbon Footprint Calculator to estimate my carbon emission for field work, and the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator to make comparisons.
The thing that is tricky is that to collect data to make informed decisions and to make the world a better place typically requires some on the ground field work. In the case of my current research, we're studying the effectiveness of coastal restoration projects, and that information/data/modeling has implications worldwide, not just here. So in the big picture, the fuel we're using and the carbons we're emitting are smaller then the bigger problem we're trying to solve.
Except that the climate is changing, the seas are rising, the temperatures are warming, and all of that has additional complex impacts on coastal restoration and monitoring. Emitting greenhouse gases adds to the atmosphere and adds up to increase climate change.
So it's a double edged sword, really. We need to collect the data to solve the problems and make informed decisions, but doing so also feeds the problem.
What's the answer?
I don't think there is a straightforward direct answer. My own guilt about using so much fuel in the name of science can be assuaged by me personally offsetting the carbon. It's not a total fix for it, but it can help, at least.
Finding a reputable organization to buy carbon offset credits is tricky though. There's a lot of moving parts and it's confusing. There's lots of organizations and websites that seem reputable but I'm really not sure how to tell, and they may all be reputable. However, the UN does have a carbon offset program: https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/. And because it's the UN I feel like it has a bigger bat to swing here so that seems like a good solution to me and we know it's reputable.
Not every scientific research project though has a cost of carbon emissions. Some studies require taking of animals, or clipping of healthy plants, or modifying the landscape to study how things react. There's an impact to everything we do, science or no, and I think the key is to do it responsibly and with the utmost care. We need to be aware of the impacts of our research beyond what we are actually studying and to be ethical about our work. Those are the keys, in my opinion.
Each month I donate $25 to a worthy cause and for July I will be using that money to offset carbon emissions. I am continuing my journey to a lower waste lifestyle, and this is another step in the right direction.
RESOURCES:
A Short Guide to Carbon Offsets
UN's Climate Neutral Now Offset Program
Gold Standard
The work we've been doing isn't destructive, exactly, but we are using a lot of fuel to collect the necessary data for our research projects. I often wonder, now and in past projects, if the cost of fuel and the price of emissions is worth the data and the end goal.
Trucks aren't exactly fuel efficient, particularly when towing a trailer, and boats aren't fuel efficient either, particularly not airboats. I've used ATVs in the past as well, and they use less fuel because they're smaller but still use fuel.
In graduate school I studied shorebird usage of rice fields during spring migration, and had to complete my survey rounds every 8 days. I'd drive hundreds of miles every week to visit 100 rice fields every 8 days to do my roadside surveys. I got loads of great data, had some good conclusions, and completed my thesis. But I drove thousands of miles in pursuit of that data.
If I drove 5000 miles in pursuit of that data, the average vehicle emissions is 2.1 metric tons. That's apparently equivalent to 2274 pounds of coal being burned, and 5 barrels oil being consumed.
I used the Car Carbon Footprint Calculator to estimate my carbon emission for field work, and the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator to make comparisons.
The thing that is tricky is that to collect data to make informed decisions and to make the world a better place typically requires some on the ground field work. In the case of my current research, we're studying the effectiveness of coastal restoration projects, and that information/data/modeling has implications worldwide, not just here. So in the big picture, the fuel we're using and the carbons we're emitting are smaller then the bigger problem we're trying to solve.
Except that the climate is changing, the seas are rising, the temperatures are warming, and all of that has additional complex impacts on coastal restoration and monitoring. Emitting greenhouse gases adds to the atmosphere and adds up to increase climate change.
So it's a double edged sword, really. We need to collect the data to solve the problems and make informed decisions, but doing so also feeds the problem.
What's the answer?
I don't think there is a straightforward direct answer. My own guilt about using so much fuel in the name of science can be assuaged by me personally offsetting the carbon. It's not a total fix for it, but it can help, at least.
Finding a reputable organization to buy carbon offset credits is tricky though. There's a lot of moving parts and it's confusing. There's lots of organizations and websites that seem reputable but I'm really not sure how to tell, and they may all be reputable. However, the UN does have a carbon offset program: https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/. And because it's the UN I feel like it has a bigger bat to swing here so that seems like a good solution to me and we know it's reputable.
Not every scientific research project though has a cost of carbon emissions. Some studies require taking of animals, or clipping of healthy plants, or modifying the landscape to study how things react. There's an impact to everything we do, science or no, and I think the key is to do it responsibly and with the utmost care. We need to be aware of the impacts of our research beyond what we are actually studying and to be ethical about our work. Those are the keys, in my opinion.
Each month I donate $25 to a worthy cause and for July I will be using that money to offset carbon emissions. I am continuing my journey to a lower waste lifestyle, and this is another step in the right direction.
RESOURCES:
A Short Guide to Carbon Offsets
UN's Climate Neutral Now Offset Program
Gold Standard
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Littering
I was sitting in traffic the other day, like everyone else who has ever tried to cross the "new bridge"* at any time of day for the entirety of its existence. And in the next lane was a white Lexus, with a guy driving and 3 passengers. And he's SMOKING. With the windows UP. And everyone looks MISERABLE. And then he flicks the cigarette butt out the window. OUT THE WINDOW. All nonchalant like, as if it's no big deal.
And all I could think is, what hateful flavor of asshole do you have to be to think that throwing a cigarette butt out the car window is acceptable behavior? I just cannot comprehend how anyone thinks this way. What trajectory did this guy's life take that he (apparently) thinks littering is acceptable, okay, not dick behavior, and possibly even that his cigarette butt is not his problem?
He must be arrogant, right? To nonchalantly flick trash out a car window, in full view of people, with no apparent qualms about the behavior is a level of arrogance I cannot comprehend. It's arrogant to think that you can do whatever you want, rules be damned. It's arrogant to think that this litter is somebody else's problem.
He must also be ignorant, right? At least ignorant in this realm of things - maybe he's a very nice man or really bright about other things. But in this, he's ignorant. It's ignorant to think that the trash you threw out the window is no big deal, that it doesn't matter, and that since it's gone it's not a problem anymore.
He must also be rude and/or inconsiderate, right? For starters he was smoking in a car with passengers with the windows up. Maybe they were all fine with hotboxing it but they looked unhappy. But also it's rude to throw trash out. And it's inconsiderate of others. This time it's a cigarette, but how many cigarette butts has this guy thrown out his car window? It's inconsiderate of the surrounding area too, because littering is bad but also it's unsightly.
Cigarette butts are bad because they're bite size for wildlife, and can be harmful to them. They're also some of the most common forms of litter, and possibly as much as 35% of all litter is cigarette butts. Also it appears that 75% of smokers have admitted to throwing cigarette butts out the car window [source]. Cigarettes contain toxic chemicals (which should be no surprise to anyone) but includes arsenic, lead, and plastic (these could surprise some). They're not biodegradable in any way either so it's not like they'll just disappear quickly.
In my angry research I discovered that I can report littering! Even cigarette butts out car windows! If you're in Louisiana, the phone # is 1-888-LIT-R-BUG aka 1-888-548-7284. You better believe I'm reporting this shithead behavior next time I see it! Turns out the Keep Louisiana Beautiful group is doing that good work.
That number is only good for Louisiana but turns out there's a list by state of ways to report litter! I don't know how up to date it is but here goes anyway: https://www.greenecoservices.com/state-litter-hotlines/
-----
*The "new bridge" is the I-10 Mississippi River Bridge in Baton Rouge that crosses the Mississippi River. It's only new in comparison to the US 190 bridge just north of the I-10 bridge. Locally they're known as the "new bridge" and the "old bridge".
And all I could think is, what hateful flavor of asshole do you have to be to think that throwing a cigarette butt out the car window is acceptable behavior? I just cannot comprehend how anyone thinks this way. What trajectory did this guy's life take that he (apparently) thinks littering is acceptable, okay, not dick behavior, and possibly even that his cigarette butt is not his problem?
He must be arrogant, right? To nonchalantly flick trash out a car window, in full view of people, with no apparent qualms about the behavior is a level of arrogance I cannot comprehend. It's arrogant to think that you can do whatever you want, rules be damned. It's arrogant to think that this litter is somebody else's problem.
He must also be ignorant, right? At least ignorant in this realm of things - maybe he's a very nice man or really bright about other things. But in this, he's ignorant. It's ignorant to think that the trash you threw out the window is no big deal, that it doesn't matter, and that since it's gone it's not a problem anymore.
He must also be rude and/or inconsiderate, right? For starters he was smoking in a car with passengers with the windows up. Maybe they were all fine with hotboxing it but they looked unhappy. But also it's rude to throw trash out. And it's inconsiderate of others. This time it's a cigarette, but how many cigarette butts has this guy thrown out his car window? It's inconsiderate of the surrounding area too, because littering is bad but also it's unsightly.
Cigarette butts are bad because they're bite size for wildlife, and can be harmful to them. They're also some of the most common forms of litter, and possibly as much as 35% of all litter is cigarette butts. Also it appears that 75% of smokers have admitted to throwing cigarette butts out the car window [source]. Cigarettes contain toxic chemicals (which should be no surprise to anyone) but includes arsenic, lead, and plastic (these could surprise some). They're not biodegradable in any way either so it's not like they'll just disappear quickly.
In my angry research I discovered that I can report littering! Even cigarette butts out car windows! If you're in Louisiana, the phone # is 1-888-LIT-R-BUG aka 1-888-548-7284. You better believe I'm reporting this shithead behavior next time I see it! Turns out the Keep Louisiana Beautiful group is doing that good work.
That number is only good for Louisiana but turns out there's a list by state of ways to report litter! I don't know how up to date it is but here goes anyway: https://www.greenecoservices.com/state-litter-hotlines/
-----
*The "new bridge" is the I-10 Mississippi River Bridge in Baton Rouge that crosses the Mississippi River. It's only new in comparison to the US 190 bridge just north of the I-10 bridge. Locally they're known as the "new bridge" and the "old bridge".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)